A Better Way to Do Critical Hits?

[Falling Icicle]

In past editions, critical hits usually resulted from rolling a natural 20 on the die. I don't really like this, as it makes critical hits happen irrespective of a character's skill. Shouldn't a master swordsman "crit" more than a novice? Shouldn't it be easier to "crit" a less-defended target than one that is harder to hit in the first place?

I think I have the solution, and it's pretty simple and straightforward. You score a critical hit if your attack result exceeds your target's AC by 10 or more. You not only hit them, you got an extraordinary success on your attack roll, resulting in a critical hit. Luck is still a factor, but skill is also.

What do you think?

 

[TarionzCousin]

It makes sense, but I don't think they'll make that the rule. It's brand new and they seem to be looking backward for inspiration.

I would like to see "Roll a natural 20, do double damage."

 

[Traken]

Or go with the GURPS hybrid: Roll a 20, get a critical. Roll 10 above the DC, get a critical.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It makes sense, but I don't think they'll make that the rule. It's brand new and they seem to be looking backward for inspiration.

I really hope that this edition is more than just an amalgam of past editions with no innovation.

 

[CM]

I think the "natural 20" meme is so ingrained into the hobby that it's creeping out into pop culture. I highly doubt it will be going away.

I hope that crit confirm rolls are not necessary in 5e, and that "20s always hit" is in as well. There is the (valid) issue that if you can only hit on a 20, then every hit would be a crit. First of all, if this situation is common then I think something odd is going on. Second, it would be easy to solve by ruling, for example, that you cannot critically hit creatures [X] levels above your own level, or creatures that you need a 20 to hit.

While I like 4e, specific injuries from critical hits is something that I miss. I'd like to see an (optional, of course) method for tracking long-term injuries to various body parts, perhaps using something like the 4e disease track. There was a cleric in my 3e age of worms game who suffered an arrow to the eye. He saw it as a sign that he had done wrong, and never had it regenerated. When we talk about that game to this day that's still one of the first things that gets brought up.

 

[Minigiant]

In past editions, critical hits usually resulted from rolling a natural 20 on the die. I don't really like this, as it makes critical hits happen irrespective of a character's skill. Shouldn't a master swordsman "crit" more than a novice? Shouldn't it be easier to "crit" a less-defended target than one that is harder to hit in the first place?

I think I have the solution, and it's pretty simple and straightforward. You score a critical hit if your attack result exceeds your target's AC by 10 or more. You not only hit them, you got an extraordinary success on your attack roll, resulting in a critical hit. Luck is still a factor, but skill is also.

What do you think?

If my PC can roll 10 higher than your AC, forget critical. The target should be dead.

Meaning, I don't want attack bonuses high enough to get 10 higher than AC without already getting a nat 19 or 20. None of the +20 attack vs AC 20 nonsense.


Roll 20, get critical
Hit helpless, get critical
Action Point module: spend action point, get critical
Critical fumble module: Roll 1, fall on own sword

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think the effect was built into the original game with hit points. Critical hits only encourage even higher hit point totals which contributes to the overall numbers bloat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think I have the solution, and it's pretty simple and straightforward. You score a critical hit if your attack result exceeds your target's AC by 10 or more. You not only hit them, you got an extraordinary success on your attack roll, resulting in a critical hit. Luck is still a factor, but skill is also.

What do you think?

Not a bad idea. That sort of thing works bettter with bell-curve resolution mechanics (Like GURPS's 3d6 attack rolls), though. It'd also be impossible to get a 'lucky hit' via the crit mechanism. Once you miss on an 11, it's all over, no crits for you.

'Confirming the Critical' - something that was done in AD&D variants for a long time and finally adopted officially in 3.0 - always struck me as a decent way to work in skill.

I suppose you could have a 'save vs crit' mechanic, where the victim makes a FORT save against a DC based on the attackers AB?


Even further afield, you could move crits to a 'plot coupon' (vancian, mile stone/action point-like) mechanism. The crit is 'random' IC but it happens when the PC decides to use the mechanim.

 

[fba827]

various editions handled this differently.. but yes it is possible to have the grandswordsman crit on other numbers and so much.
in 3e there is keen weapon and some feats and magic items and prestige classes.
in 4e there are some paragon classes and a couple specific magic items.

in either scenario, it basically represents someone who is supposed to a highly specialized swordsman or whatever.

 

[1Mac]

One of my favorite houserules: Roll a 20 (or within your threat range), roll again. Add both d20 results to you attack modifier.

If you roll double the target's AC, you do critical damage. This is true whether you initially rolled in your threat range or not. It's sort of like your 10-over-AC idea, but I think it scales better.

This does two things I like: Increases critical hits against low-powered enemies, and makes the likelihood of hitting high-powered enemies less than 5% while still being possible.

Long odds that 5e will implement anything like this, I reckon.